An attempt to block the conversion of the 17,000 square foot Castle on the Park from private residence into a school and building of a roof deck and garden atop the building at 601 Dolores will be heard by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors this afternoon.
From the appeal of Planning’s decision to allow the project to move forward without an exhaustive, and prohibitively expensive, environmental review which was filed on behalf of the owners of the adjacent building at 629 Dolores:
The building at 601 Dolores Street has been designated as a “historically significant” building. Substantial evidence fails to demonstrate that the numerous changes proposed to the building individually or cumulatively will not cause a substantial adverse change by materially altering, in an adverse manner, the physical characteristics of the 601 Dolores building and substantially impact its historical significance and its qualifications as a historical resource. Moreover, the proposed changes do not follow the Secretary of Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic properties.
In addition, the City has failed to impose conditions of approval which would mitigate the potentially adverse significant impacts to historical resources down to a level of insignificance. There is evidence which includes, but is not limited to, the fact that the rooftop additions are visible from the street, as well as from other public locations in and around the Project, and the mechanical systems and planters which will be installed on the roof are inconsistent with the architectural style and appearance of the building.
These alterations will individually and cumulatively substantially degrade its historic character thereby substantially affecting its ability to be included in the City’s Historic Register.
And from an alumni newsletter a few years back:
In San Francisco, [an alumnus] reports: “A cozy and festive gathering on April 1 at [the appellant’s] beautiful new home! Together they renovated an entire building, and the wraparound city views from their top floor unit (including from a spectacular roof deck) are awesome.”
At the time of Planning’s decision to allow the project to move forward, “the adjacent neighbor [at 629 Dolores] expressed concern about how activity on the proposed roof deck could impact noise and privacy at the rear of his multi-unit residential building next door and how the penthouse addition would block his [awesome] view.”
We didn’t, however, see any record of expressed concern with respect to preserving the buildings historic character at the time of Planning’s decision, those altruistic concerns appear to be newfound.
“Substantial evidence fails to demonstrate that the numerous changes proposed to the building individually or cumulatively will not cause a substantial adverse change by materially altering, in an adverse manner, the physical characteristics of the 601 Dolores building and substantially impact its historical significance and its qualifications as a historical resource.”
Seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the appellant to demonstrate tht the proposed changes will be substantially adverse.
An abuse of the process by a nimby neighbor worried about the noise & prying eyes of 7th graders. The historical BS is a red-herring.
Classic SF.
They should get a job so they won’t be at home when school’s in session.
The internet is amazing! A comment I made on another site about this project and its ivy league appellants made it all the way over here 🙂
I own a building around the corner from here. What a nimby loser of a neighbor. The day school is a great use for this building, much more pleasant crowd than the narcotics anonymous crowd that used to meet in the basement. Nice to have more kids by the park too.
I lived literally across the street (19th) from here.
If the neighbor can put up with the noise from essentially 1,000 people playing in his front yard on a daily basis (x10 on weekends), then he can live with some kids playing at recess from 9-2.
I doubt the neighbors care about the kids, looks like they’re trying to preserve their views and privacy. Can’t blame them for trying.
It looks like there’s a little room in the bottom of the diagram labeled “HELL”. I know it used to be a church, but really, you’d think they’d remodel that in the renovation!
San Francisco’s complex approvals process virtually eliminates the notion of “as of right” zoning. Aggrieved neighbors can stall a project and raise its cost by playing the system. As a practical matter, these two parties should negotiate a settlement among themselves rather than wasting their time and money (and ours) on “process”. The school is devaluing the neighbors property; can they design something tasteful to look at? Can they apply some of their “approvals budget” to improving the neighbor’s property so each is better off? Reality bites…
Maybe the neighbor would prefer the church be torn down and 50 apartments be built. Be careful what you fight for.
James
It’s HALL.
classic move .. have problems that are possibly valid, do some research and realize that, indeed, you don’t have a valid case, and THEN, as a totally last straw, just to be a jerk, and after talking to some scummy “historic” consultants, play the historic card. I can’t handle these NIMBY compliants and the consultants that help them, and the fact that the planning commission acutally takes them into consideration. This should be SO transparent but the commission takes them as valid compliants. Shame on this planning commish for propogating such garbage. They need to look at the real, original documents and compliants, and not the BS that ends up in these hearings. Seriously.
“I doubt the neighbors care about the kids, looks like they’re trying to preserve their views and privacy. Can’t blame them for trying”
Well, I can. This is city living, my friend. Deal with it. If you want privacy and views, move to the burbs or sierras.